harrypotterfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Blood pact
3-way duel I thought Dumbledore and Grindelwald fought in a 3-way duel before Ariana died and Grindelwald fled? Wouldn't they have both broken the pact in doing so? - Kates39 (talk) 19:40, November 18, 2018 (UTC) :Unless they made the pact afterwards? I found it strange that the pact would be specifically not to fight each other (compared say to swearing alliegence, undying "friendship", etc) unless perhaps this pact was a result of the duel and its consequences? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:34, November 18, 2018 (UTC) Doubtful, since Grindelwald would've wanted to get out of there immediately when Ariana was killed. More likely, the blood pact entailed the prospects of meeting each other on the field of battle and hence "stand in the way of the Greater Good" should any of them waver in their conviction. Knowing Grindelwald, he did this as a safey valve. Anyway, maybe a violent scuffle from righteous anger didn't violate the conditions of the blood pact, but directly opposing the revolutionary endevor they initially planned to make together did? Maester Martin (talk) 20:45, November 18, 2018 (UTC) : ^ agreed. I mean, I suppose it's possible they made it after their duel but it's very unlikely and not logical, since Grindelwald fled when Ariana died and Albus was devastated by her death. He later said he knew during the argument with Aberforth that Aberforth was right, and he was upset by the way Grindelwald had hurt Aberforth which led the whole duel, so why would they take the time to make such a blood pact when the whole event with Aberforth and Ariana led to their abandonment of each other? : Perhaps it was about a notion of "undying friendship" and their trust for each other that led them to making a pact that needed specific rules (before the duel happened). And maybe it was about protection from each other now their friendship was ended, but why would either of them take the time to make a pact after their duel and the devastation of Ariana's death, that ultimately wouldn't protect them anyway, because it would constrict them from simply eliminating each other and the danger they bring to their separate plans? It's not logical. Dumbledore would still have to be hoodwinked by love, and he basically later said the argument woke him up to the truth. : I'm hoping that further information about the limitations of the blood pact will be given, but I do think the possible contradiction until then based on the facts we have at the moment, should be noted. - Kates39 (talk) 20:55, November 18, 2018 (UTC) ::Ultimately we don't know how blood pacts work (physically prevent some action, dire consequences if broken, etc), what the details between Gellert & Albus were (no direct fighting, no preventing the Greater Good, etc), or when specifically it was made (particularly in relationship to the 3-way duel). I've tried to capture some of this in the BTS section - please expand or clarify as needed. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:28, November 18, 2018 (UTC) I don't know if I agree that we know as little as you think... The fact that the blood pact even exist, is actually quite telling, and is basically just subtext for how manipulative Grindelwald was. If you think about it, the blood pact was subtly twisted in Grindelwald's favor from the start. Again, Grindelwald was willing to share his plan of world domination with Albus and would even preferred it if they went on that path together, but ultimately, he knew if one of them were to get a change of heart, it would be Albus. Hence, the blood pact served a very distinct purpose in the movie, because, again, it was Gridelwald's personal little safey valve. It's a reason that public opinion grew that Dumbledore would be the only one who could stop Grindelwald, and Grindelwald would've foreseen this potentiality for obvious reasons. The blood pact, to put it in simple terms, meant that as long as Grindelwald had it in his possession, he was free to rise to dominance over the wizarding world, whereas.Dumbledore was actively prevented from trying to stop him anyway, so Dumbledore wouldn't be a problem. Until, of course, Grindelgraves met Newt, he realized someone who had Dumbledore's confidence was in New York and put two-and-two together, which was when he realized Dumbledore could prove a formidable obstacle even without confronting him directly, and finding Credence and getting him on his side became even more important. Remember, when the blood pact took place, Dumbledore was convinced that the revolutionary endeavor Grindelwald wanted to embark on would be in everyone's best interest, and on top of that, he was in love with him. It seems more in line with Grindelwald's character, as presented to us by canon sources, for him to manipulate Albus, since furthering his goals at the expense of someone else, are just a thing Grindelwald does, and thus, we have the motives for the blood pact from Grindelwald's point of view... You know... Unless, Rowling retcons the poo out of the Potterverse to the point where it no longer makes sense, and shows the same sort of disregard for her own canon as John Tiffany and Jack Thorne did with that idiotic little fanfiction of theirs... Maester Martin (talk) 20:35, November 21, 2018 (UTC) Good grief, what now? -.-' Okay, what exactly is the "cleanup" supposed to have been? What exactly is the problem with the way I simply paraphrased the sentence so it didn't look, forgive me, kind of dumbed down in comparison to the other articles? Maester Martin (talk) 04:44, November 22, 2018 (UTC) :Because there's no indication in canon this does constitute a binding magical contract, so to say it outright is misleading. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 11:53, November 24, 2018 (UTC) No indication? Then why did Newt take it to Dumbledore then? Why did he ask Dumbledore if he could destroy it? If the blood pact weren't magically binding and just symbolic, why would Grindelwald carry it around? Not out of emotional value, he wants Dumbledore dead, as we now know was one of, and most certainly the primary, reason for wanting to recruit Credence to his ranks. Maester Martin (talk) 13:00, November 24, 2018 (UTC) :And how exactly are we to know the two are the same thing, and not different things entirely? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 13:07, November 24, 2018 (UTC) Well, the word "pact" and "contract" can be used interchangeably, for starters.So both are tied to the act of entering an agreement between two or more people that is binding, legally or otherwise. In this case, magically. Secondly, the Goblet of Fire is not a contract, but having one's name emerge from it, is known to constitute to one. And please note, that Barty Crouch Sr. did not say "A binding magical contract", while the three words uninterrupted or capitalised as if it describes a particular, specific conept, he said it "constitutes a binding',' magical contract". Quite simply, once you put your name in the goblet, you have agreed to participate, and there are magic in place to hold you to it. And that is, in simple terms, based on what we know about blood pacts from the movie/script, how we define the purpose of a blood pact. So one could say that all blood pacts are binding, magical contracts, but not all binding, magical contracts are blood pacts. The fourth book, based on the appearance of those words and the way/context in which they are used, give no indication that it is anything more than a generalization. Words that does not refer to something uniquely magical that only applies to the Goblet of Fire, but a simple explonation of why Harry had to attend. It's descriptive and non-specific, nothing more. Maester Martin (talk) 13:31, November 24, 2018 (UTC) :The one who refers to magical contracts is Dumbledore, not Crouch. (Incidentally, later, on chapter 17 of Goblet of Fire Barty Crouch Jr. does refer to a "binding magical contract", sans commas.) But I digress. :"So one could say that all blood pacts are binding, magical contracts, but not all binding, magical contracts are blood pacts", sure, if only there was any canonical source to support this. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 14:11, November 24, 2018 (UTC) There is... It's usage in the fourth book as a non-specific, descriptive way of saying that putting one's name in the goblet means you are consenting to enter a magically binding agreement that hold you to your word. A "binding, magical contract" isn't a term unique to the Goblet of Fire, it is an alternative to saying "you have to participate, because there are spells in place that make sure you do if you try not to." Maester Martin (talk) 14:54, November 24, 2018 (UTC) :Well, sure, but given the limited knowledge we have of what the implications of a blood pact are, we oughtn't be equating it to anything else in canon, save, perhaps, in "Behind the scenes". Certainly not in the lead paragraph, and certainly not as if it's been in some way confirmed. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 15:17, November 24, 2018 (UTC) Whatever implications of the blood pact is irrelevant, because we know that; 1) It's an agreement. 2) It's magically binding. And given the usage of "binding, magical contract" in book four, that's all that's needed for it to qualify for the generic description of a magically enforced deal between wizards we know as a "binding magical contract". Maester Martin (talk) 17:11, November 24, 2018 (UTC) :No it isn't. It's never referred to as a contract. Not all agreements are contracts. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 17:30, November 24, 2018 (UTC) And considering the fact that the word contract does not have to mean a literal ''contract, with terms written on a piece of paper and the signatures of the involved parties adorning the bottom of the document, but can simply mean that someone are entering a formal agreement of some sort, what does that have to do with anything? I mean - there is a difference between something ''being ''a literal, binding magical contract and something ''constituting ''a binding magical contract. The latter of which simply means that a deal has been struck and magic is involved to make sure the involved parties keep their end of the bargin. You are overthinking this Seth. A pact, or an oath, is a verbal agreement, and conceptually speaking, the word contract is a synonym, even if it isn't a ''literal ''contract. The Goblet of Fire isn't a literal contract either, but for every intent and purposes, it is, and it's a magically binding one. Maester Martin (talk) 19:00, November 24, 2018 (UTC) :You're playing with words. Bottom line is, we oughtn't be equating something that hasn't been equated for us. That's "Behind the scenes" stuff at best. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| '''Seth Cooper' ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 19:08, November 24, 2018 (UTC) I'm doing no such thing. I am simply pointing out that based on the context and manner in which the concept of "a binding, magical contract" appear in canon, it's a non-specific, descriptive thing. It refers to a deal being struck and magic being involved to keep people from breaking it. Not a specific ''kind of deal ''that's magically binding, just ''a deal ''that's magically binding. If anything, I'd say you're the one arguing schematics, chief, because you got hung up on the word "contract". Maester Martin (talk) 20:42, November 24, 2018 (UTC).